I've never worked in an organisation that used SAFe, but to be honest I've never worked for one that used SCRUM either. The only semi-structured method I've eve

I've never worked in an organisation that used SAFe, but to be honest I've never worked for one that used SCRUM either. The only semi-structured method I've ever been part of has been "SCRUM BUT". What I find weird about both SCRUM and now SAFe is that pretty much every single agile expert I've read articles and blog post from dislikes it. My take away is that the agile purist, if you can call them that, are focus on delivering high quality software and user satisfaction, that's the focus, that's the goal. SCRUM and perhaps now SAFe (presumptuous acronym btw) seem to be focused on managing software deliveries in larger organisations. As some one who studies software engineering and process management 18 years ago, I can't say that time has made me think that things have improved much over time. I am especially skeptical of processes that comes with certifications and titles. The original agile manifesto is beautiful in that it's something we can all do. There's are no training, no certification, no corporate backer. Its principles, and you can either agree or disagree, is something the team can reflect and meditate on how to best incorporate the ideas into their work. Overall, more and more I start to think that PHK was right in his talk "Entirely Predictable Failures" in 2012[1]. It's snake oil, almost all of it. [1] https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Predictable-Failures/ https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Predictable-Failures/ (At around 24:30 and a few minutes from there).